GINGRICH CLAIMED HE WAS HIRED BY FREDDIE MAC AS A HISTORIAN, NOT A LOBBYIST, DESPITE AN AP REPORT TO THE CONTRARY

Gingrich Claimed He Was Hired By Freddie Mac As A “Historian” And Not As A Lobbyist. “At Wednesday night’s GOP presidential debate in Michigan, Newt Gingrich was asked by the mostly on-the-ball CNBC panel about his work on behalf of housing giant Freddie Mac. For the former Speaker of the House, it was a bit of a welcome-back moment; for the last few months, he’s been so much of an afterthought that moderators haven’t even bothered with his own personal history and resume. But Gingrich had an answer ready. He denied the lobbying charge, and then, via Benjy Sarlin, offered this spirited defense: ‘I offered advice. My advice as an historian when they walked in and said we are now making loans to people that have no credit history and have no record of paying back anything but that’s what the government wants us to do. I said at the time, this is a bubble. This is insane. This is impossible. It turned out unfortunately I was right and the people who were doing exactly what Congresswoman Bachmann talked about were wrong.’“ [Mother Jones, 11/9/11]

Associated Press: Gingrich Was Hired In 2006 By Freddie Mac To Use His Influence To Keep Government Regulation Against Freddie Mac From Gaining Support In Congress. “Efforts to tighten government regulation were gaining support on Capitol Hill, and Freddie Mac was fighting back. According to internal Freddie Mac documents obtained by the AP, Reps. Bob Ney (R-Ohio), and Paul Kanjorski (D-Pa.) spent the evening in hard-to-obtain seats near the Nationals dugout with Freddie Mac executive Hollis McLoughlin and four of Freddie Mac’s in-house lobbyists. Both were members of the House Financial Services Committee. The Nationals tickets were bargains for Freddie Mac, part of a well-orchestrated, multimillion-dollar campaign to preserve its largely regulatory-free environment, with particular pressure exerted on Republicans who controlled Congress at the time. Internal Freddie Mac budget records show $11.7 million was paid to 52 outside lobbyists and consultants in 2006. Power brokers such as former House Speaker Newt Gingrich were recruited with six-figure contracts.” [Associated Press, 12/8/08]

THE GINGRICH GROUP WAS PAID BETWEEN $1.6-$1.8 MILLION IN CONSULTING FEES BY FREDDIE MAC BETWEEN 1999-2008

Bloomberg: Freddie Mac Paid Newt Gingrich $1.6-$1.8 Million In Consulting Fees, Not The $300,000 That Was Originally Thought. “Newt Gingrich made between $1.6 million and $1.8 million in consulting fees from two contracts with mortgage company Freddie Mac, according to two people familiar with the arrangement. The total amount is significantly larger than the $300,000 payment from Freddie Mac that Gingrich was asked about during a Republican presidential debate on Nov. 9 sponsored by CNBC, and more than was disclosed in the middle of congressional investigations into the housing industry collapse.” [Bloomberg News, 11/16/11]

GINGRICH’S CLAIM THAT HE WAS NEVER PAID TO LOBBY WAS CONTRADICTED BY FREDDIE MAC OFFICIALS AND POLITICAL INSIDERS WHO SAID HE WAS HIRED TO CONVINCE CONGRESSIONAL REPUBLICANS NOT TO CUT THEIR FUNDING

Gingrich Campaign: “Gingrich Has Never Lobbied For Freddie Mac…Nor Did Gingrich, As Part Of His Contract, Advocate Against Pending Legislation Affecting Freddie Mac.” “Gingrich has never lobbied for Freddie Mac, or any client, nor has anyone in any of the organizations he founded after leaving office as part of their work with them. Gingrich made a decision after resigning that he would never be a lobbyist so that nobody would ever question the genuine nature of his advice and perspectives. This prohibition against lobbying was made very clear to all Gingrich Group clients and strict internal protocals were developed to prevent lobbying. Today’s Bloomberg article confirms that Gingrich and his firm did no lobbying for Freddie Mac. Nor did Gingrich, as part of his contract, advocate against pending legislation affecting Freddie Mac, as Gingrich was accused of doing by the moderator at the CNBC debate in Michigan. This, too, was confirmed by the Bloomberg News article this morning.” [Des Moines Register, 11/16/11]

A Former Freddie Mac Official Said Gingrich Advised Them To Tell Republicans That The Organization Was Not Explicitly Government Backed In Order To Keep Them From Losing Funding. “Officials said Mr. Gingrich was brought in to help Freddie Mac hone its message to conservative audiences. One person recalled that Mr. Gingrich advised them, for instance, to tell Republicans that the organization was not explicitly government backed — and, at the time, it was not — but also not as freewheeling as Wall Street banks, occupying a responsible middle ground.” [New York Times, 11/16/11]

During His First Stint With Freddie Mac, Gingrich’s Primary Contact Was Chief Lobbyist Mitchell Delk, With Whom He Helped Craft An Effort To Get The Bush Administration To Expand A Home Ownership Program. “His primary contact inside the organization was Mitchell Delk, Freddie Mac’s chief lobbyist, and he was paid a self- renewing, monthly retainer of $25,000 to $30,000 between May 1999 until 2002, according to three people familiar with aspects of the business agreement. During that period, Gingrich consulted with Freddie Mac executives on a program to expand home ownership, an idea Delk said he pitched to President George W. Bush’s White House.” [Bloomberg News, 11/16/11]

GINGRICH PRAISED THE FREDDIE MAC BUSINESS MODEL

In 2007, Gingrich Praised The Freddie Mac Business Model And Warned Against Changing It, In Direct Contrast With His Current Assertion That He Warned The Mortgage Company Of Its “Insane” Business Practices. “Former House speaker Newt Gingrich highlighted the benefits of Freddie Mac's business model in 2007 -- a position that appears to contradict his assertion that he warned the mortgage company of its ‘insane’ business practices. In an interview posted in an archived version of Freddie Mac's website, Gingrich discusses the so-called government-supported enterprise model, dubbed GSEs. ‘While we need to improve the regulations of the GSEs, I would be very cautious about fundamentally changing their role or the model itself,’ he said. He went on to praise Freddie Mac's and Fannie Mae's ‘important contribution’ to homeownership.” [USA Today, 12/1/11]

In 2007, Gingrich Credited Freddie Mac With Creating “A Much More Liquid And Stable Housing Finance System.” “That's not the tone Gingrich takes in the Freddie Mac interview in which he touts the GSE model. ‘There is not much support for the idea of removing the GSE charters from Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae,’ he said. ‘And it's clear why. The housing GSEs have made an important contribution to homeownerhip and the housing finance system. We have a much more liquid and stable housing finance system that we would have had without the GSEs.’” [USA Today, 12/1/11]

In tonight’s Iowa Debate Mitt Romney casually offered a $10,000 bet, after calling a $1,500 tax break for the middle class a band-aid. Mitt Romney may not know what $10,000 means to middle class families, but here’s what the average American family can buy with $10,000:

While both Romney and Gingrich claim they’d support and defend Israel, they’ve both advocated for starting foreign aid at zero, including Israel. And a fundraiser for Romney served as a lobbyist for the Arab Bank, which was investigated by the Treasury Department for funneling money to Palestinian terrorists. Their records stand in stark contrast to President Obama, who has constantly demonstrated his unshakeable commitment to Israel’s security and well-being, strengthening the unbreakable bond between our two nations. In both word and deed, the President has signaled to the world that the US‐Israel relationship is stronger than ever.

On immigration, Mitt Romney’s position is the most far-right of the Republican field. Tonight, he once again highlighted his extreme plan and said, “My own view is, those 11 million should register the fact they're here in the country. They should give some transition period of time, allow them settle their affairs and then return home and get in line at the back of the line with everybody else that wants to come here.” With plans like this, it’s clear that Romney is continuing his race to the right and taking his place as one of the most extreme presidential candidates in American history on immigration.

First, Romney said his health care plan in Massachusetts would be a model for the nation. Then, he flip flopped and said it shouldn’t. In reality, the national health reform law that Romney has vowed to repeal was based on Romney’s plan in Massachusetts.

Both Romney and Gingrich claim their policies are good for the American middle class. But the reality is the economic plans they’ve embraced slash taxes on corporations and the wealthiest Americans and do nearly nothing for the middle class.

In 2007, Gingrich Praised The Freddie Mac Business Model And Warned Against Changing It, In Direct Contrast With His Current Assertion That He Warned The Mortgage Company Of Its “Insane” Business Practices.

First, Romney was against extending the payroll tax cut because it was a “temporary little Band-Aid.” Then, he said he’d “like to see the payroll tax cut extended” because it helps American families. And tonight, he again called the payroll tax cut a “little Band-Aid.” His flip-flopping on the payroll tax cut - and his economic plan - shows middle-class Americans whose side he’s really on. And if $1500 for the average American family is a “little Band-Aid,” then why does his plan only give them $54?

Tonight, Mitt Romney said that we need to have trade policies that make sense for America, not just for the people with whom we trade. This President has not done that. And China, who has been cheating, has to be cracked down on.

Romney can’t make up his mind on what his strategy would be in Afghanistan. First, he wouldn’t say what he’d do. Then in January, he said it was his “desire” not to leave Afghanistan. Five months later, he claimed he wanted the troops to come home as soon as possible.

Romney and the rest of the Republican field support zeroing out foreign aid, even with our closest allies – including Israel. But in true Romney fashion, after he supported zeroing out aid to Israel, he flip flopped and said he wanted to increase it instead. And at tonight’s debate, he said his first foreign trip as president would be to Israel to demonstrate our strong relationship.

President Obama has launched a series of trailblazing initiatives to protect the health and safety of the American people, reduce our dependence on imported oil and promote responsible use of domestic energy and new, clean energy technologies

The latest GOP debate proved that none of the Republican candidates have a plan to create jobs. But we did hear from Rick Perry about Mitt Romney’s record on jobs, and from Romney on Perry’s record on children’s health care.

At last night's GOP presidential debate, instead of offering a plan to improve the lives of middle-class Americans, the Republican candidates fought over which one of them has changed their position the most since their books came out. None of them managed to offered a single new idea.

Rick Perry can try to blame others for the state of health care in Texas, but middle-class Texans know the reality: Under Governor Perry’s policies, health insurance premiums have risen 105 percent, nearly 6.5 million Texans are uninsured, and the state has spent as little as possible on health care.

If there’s one thing debate watchers could count on, it’s a full-fledged attack on Social Security from the Republican candidates. These are the same candidates who have previously called for privatizing Social Security and even labeled it a “Ponzi scheme” – and we heard more of the same tonight.

Mitt Romney claims he’ll lower taxes for the middle class, but his plan will actually let special interests write their own rules, provide more tax cuts to large corporations and wealthy Americans, and cost $2.1 trillion.

Tonight’s debate confirmed that the Republican candidates are more interested in saying what the Tea Party wants to hear than in doing what the American people are demanding: -- more interested in arguing if Social Security is a "fraud" or a "Ponzi scheme" than in creating jobs.

From Rick Perry criticizing Mitt Romney's record on jobs to Jon Huntsman's charge that his fellow Republicans are running from science, the Republican candidates took the gloves off and attacked each other at last night's debate.

The Republican candidates attacked President Obama on border security, but his record is clear: unprecedented resources for securing our border and a smart and effective approach to enforcing immigration laws.

President Obama has been pursuing all forms of responsible domestic energy production -- including a record investment in clean technology and the approval of the first new nuclear plant in 30 years. The Republican candidates, however, would all protect special tax breaks for oil companies at the expense of middle class families.

Though the Republican candidates rail against health care reform now, their criticism ignores the reality of their records. Two candidates implemented similar health reforms in their states and another’s has the highest rate of uninsured people in the nation.

While Mitt Romney might like to claim that he’s the Republican candidate with the economic experience needed to be president, his record – from ranking 47th in job creation to raising taxes on individuals and businesses – tells a very different story.

While Perry might like to talk about the "Texas miracle," the reality is it’s just another Texas Tall Tale – just remember that growth has been driven by factors he didn’t control, like rising oil prices and increased military spending.

As governor, Mitt Romney bragged to the S&P that he had cut spending and raised taxes in Massachusetts. But at tonight’s debate, he flip flopped on the balanced approach he once took, even rejecting a compromise proposal of 10 spending cuts to every one revenue increase.

In tonight’s debate, Mitt Romney and Michele Bachmann reiterated that they opposed the compromise debt agreement. They in fact are following the extreme wing of their party that would have allowed our nation to default for the first time in history, which would have had disastrous effects for our economy.